Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it seems to me in watching the debate yesterday and today, both sides of the aisle want access to better care for every American who is in some form of an HMO or managed care plan. I think we should acknowledge that we do have different approaches on how to get there. We can summarize the differences in three ways: No. 1, we are looking at the costs. Many Members are concerned that if we raise the cost of a premium, a family has worse than a Hobson's choice as our colleagues have complained we are giving them with regard to floor debate. If the cost of health care rises too much, millions of Americans will have no choice at all when they lose their coverage. That has to be a consideration. No. 2, on the issue of who defines the standards, our amendments and our underlying bill put the emphasis on the patient and the physician. They give the patient the right to have an internal appeal and then an external appeal to make sure they get the quality of care the physician believes is best for that patient. No. 3, it is a matter of access to lawsuits. We have to make a fundamental choice: Do you want good care or do you want good lawsuits? That is going to make a big difference in the longevity of the HMOs and their ability to continue to give health care service. Do we need better service? Absolutely. I don't know anyone who hasn't had a complaint about an HMO. That is why I think our approach of an internal review with a time limit, an external, binding review process, again with strict time limits, by medical experts outside of the HMO is far preferable to costly litigation that can take years to resolve. This has been tested. It has been tested in my home State of Texas. We passed an internal and external review process in Texas that has worked for over a year. Part of it has been struck down by a Federal court because they said it was a Federal law that takes precedence over the State law. Some of it has been knocked out. But it was working, and, on a voluntary basis, still is. People were satisfied they had the right to a quick appeal to get the care they needed. About half of the appeals were won by patients and about half by the health insurance companies, which tells me it was probably a pretty fair system. Most people want to have the quality care and a fair, quick system to redress their complaints rather than the ability to sue. Our bill would establish a national system very similar to that passed in Texas, but without creating new incentives to sue. Quality care is prospective; a lawsuit is retrospective. If a person wants good care, they are not as interested in a lawsuit later. They are interested in getting the access that the patient and the physician is seeking. The Snowe-Abraham amendment is a good amendment. It does add to the Robb amendment from yesterday. I think it is a better approach. Our approach, saying we are not going to have any arbitrary time limits on how long a woman can stay in the hospital if she has a mastectomy or a lumpectomy, is a good approach. Everything I have read says the quicker a patient can go home and be cared for at home, the better off they are and the more likely they are to have a quick recovery. However, if you have a problem, a complication in your surgery, we don't want an artificial time limit on the length of the hospital. That is what the amendment of Senator Snowe and Senator Abraham provides. Secondly, we have heard a lot of discussion this week about whether an OB/GYN would be primary care physician designee for a woman. The underlying Republican bill provides that both OB/GYNs and pediatricians will have direct access to a woman, in the case of the OB/GYN, or for the parent and the child, in the case of a pediatrician. That is very important. We have direct access. It is unnecessary to go through a gatekeeper in the Republican bill to see an OB/GYN physician for an OB/GYN problem; nor does a child who needs to see a pediatrician have to go through a gatekeeper. I think that is very important. I do know a number of women who only go to an OB/GYN and don't have regular checkups, although I have tried to talk my friends into getting regular physical exams. I think it is important to have a full checkup. Nevertheless, many women don't do it. So at the very least, our bill assures that they will have direct access to their OB/ GYN, without going through a gatekeeper. We are approaching this from different standards, there is no question about that. I think our approach is better. They think their approach is better. But I think we need to argue these points based on the merits. I think the Snowe amendment is a good amendment. The issue of clinical trials will come up again. I believe there should be access to clinical trials to be paid for by HMOs, I really do. There is going to be an amendment on that. It will be somewhat different in approach. Again, the difference is going to be on who defines and what the standards are, and I think Senator Mack will have a good amendment that will be better than the Dodd amendment. Just as Senator Snowe's amendment and Senator Robb's amendment are very similar, but the differences are real, I think people will be able to make a choice. I think we are going to provide a very strong women's health care amendment with the Snowe amendment that will strengthen women's ability to have direct access to their OB/GYN and have the care they need based on consultations with their physicians, not a Federal rule that would have a one-size-fits-all approach. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, then I ask you to notify me at 3\1/2\ minutes. I intend to give the other 3\1/2\ minutes to Senator Ashcroft.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wonder how much time do we have remaining, with the added time based upon the Prime Minister's appearance?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I was very pleased to meet the Prime Minister from Australia. He asked me where I was from, what State I represented. I said, ``I represent the State that everyone says is just like Australia.'' He said, ``Texas?'' And I said, ``Absolutely.'' I had a wonderful visit with him. He has a wonderful personality. We are pleased to welcome him to the Senate.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Brownback. Senator Ashcroft from Missouri, Senator Brownback, I, and many others have been talking about the marriage penalty tax for two sessions, and even a session before that. We were stunned when we discovered 44 percent of married couples in the middle-income brackets--in the $40,000 to $60,000 range--were paying a penalty just for the privilege of being married. We have introduced legislation to cut the marriage tax penalty. In fact, both the House and Senate have tax cut plans that we will be discussing over the next few months to try to determine what we can give back to the hard-working Americans who have been sending their money to Washington to fund our Government. When we start talking about how we are going to give people their money back, I think we have to step back and talk about the basic argument, which is: What do we do with the surplus? And are tax cuts the right way to spend the surplus? I will quote from a Ft. Worth Star-Telegram opinion piece by one of the editorial writers on that newspaper, Bill Thompson, from June 30, 1999. He says there is only one question to ask about the budget surplus, and that is: How should we go about giving the money back to its rightful owners? And the rightful owners, surely even the biggest nitwit in Washington can understand, are the taxpayers of the United States of America. The federal government is not a private business that can do whatever it wants to with unexpected profits. Because, in fact, we are more of a co-op. We are not a business that is trying to make a profit and then decide what to do with the profits. . . . [T]here should be no discussion about the fate of the money. . . . If there is money left over, we give it back to the people who own that money. We in Washington, DC. do not own that money. The people who earned it own it. It is time we start giving them back the money they have earned. We are doing what we should be doing. We are cutting back Government spending, so people can keep more of the money they earn. If we do not give it back to them, we will be abusing the power we have to tax the people. We are talking about giving the money back to the people who earn it, and the first place we ought to look is to people who are married who pay more taxes just because they are married. If they were each single they would be paying lower taxes, but because they got married the average is $1,400 in the marriage penalty tax. That is unconscionable. Since 1969, we have seen the marriage tax penalty get worse and worse and worse. It was not meant to be that way. Congress did not intend to tax married people more. But because more women have gone into the workforce to make ends meet and to do better for their families, the Tax Code has gotten skewed and the deductions have become unfair. So today we are saying the first priority should be to eliminate the tax that is more on married people than it would be if they were single. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Ashcroft, who is working with me on this very important issue. We will give the taxes that people are paying to the Government back to them because it does not belong to us. It belongs to the people who earn it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the article by Bill Thompson be printed in the Record.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. We will work with the Senator from California and let her see the amendment. I will ask Mr. Coverdell to make the amendment available.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we take up and consider the District of Columbia appropriations bill with the following parameters: 40 minutes equally divided on the Coverdell needle exchange amendment, with a second-degree amendment by Senator Durbin; 30 minutes for Senator Durbin's tuition assistance program amendment, and 10 minutes for the opposition; 15 minutes for Senator Durbin's sense-of-the-Senate amendment; the Hutchison managers' amendment, and a final vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to thank profusely the staff who have worked so hard on this bill. As Senator Byrd said earlier, this takes a lot of time, because there are a lot of issues that are affected by this bill. I want to thank Mary Beth Nethercutt on the Appropriations Committee and Terry Sauvain, her counterpart on the minority side. They have done a wonderful job making sure that all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted and the agreements are made and the agreements to disagree are put on the table. They have done a wonderful job. On my staff, my legislative director Jim Hyland and Robb Woodson, who is the legislative assistant who has done so much to try to make sure that this is a very good and solid bill supporting the District of Columbia. With that, Mr. President, I thank everyone for a job well done and appreciate once again Senator Durbin's cooperation. We have had a great relationship. We have agreed to disagree on some issues, but I think he speaks from the heart, and I understand, even when we disagree, that we want the same goal. For that reason, I know we will have a good bill to come back out of conference for the Senate to adopt, and then we will continue to work with the District government to make sure our views are implemented and their views are implemented. I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House of Representatives the companion bill to S. 1283, the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of that measure, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the Senate bill, S. 1283, as passed, be inserted in lieu thereof, that the House bill, as amended, be read for a third time and passed, that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate and that the foregoing occur without any intervening action or debate. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill, S. 1283, not be engrossed, that it remain at the desk pending receipt of the House companion bill, and that upon passage by the Senate of the House bill as amended, the passage of S. 1283 be vitiated and the bill be indefinitely postponed.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think that was a very special statement made by the Senator from West Virginia, and I appreciate very much that he loves this Capitol and the seat of Government for all Americans. The fact that he spent 7 years on the Appropriations Committee chairing this subcommittee means that there was a lot of attention and a lot of care paid to this city. I think he is right. I think we need to make sure this is a job well done. This is every bit as important as what I do for my constituents in Texas, because this is part of what I do for my constituents in Texas, and that is to make this the city that we all want it to be. I am very pleased the Senator recognized Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. I was going to do that as well, because Delegate Norton is so interested in everything that applies to the District and she is always there, making sure that her constituents are represented. I have been very pleased to work with her and talk to her about these issues that affect her constituents. I hope she knows that all of us look at this Capital City as all America's city, which does give it a very special place in everyone's heart and means that all of us are going to take a special interest in making it a great city.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is all the amendments we have pending. If there are no further amendments, I ask that the bill be read for a third time. The bill was ordered to be read for a third time. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think we need to pass the bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. This is a matter we can take up in conference.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have listened to Senator Durbin's arguments on his amendment, and I have to say I am pleased that he is withdrawing the amendment, because I think his amendment is absolutely flat wrong. Let's talk about what would give kids a chance in the District of Columbia. A better education system would give kids a better chance in the District of Columbia. We are funding health care for children in this District with the Federal programs that are available throughout our country. We are providing better support for education--well, we are not providing it; in fact, I think the District is providing it, and I think they are doing a good job. They are saying that charter schools should be given a chance, that if a child cannot be given a good public education in this system and that child chooses to go to a charter school, they will have an equal allocation of resources as if they were going to a public school--which a charter school is. So the District is addressing education, because they want their kids to have a chance. We are putting more in crime prevention in this bill, in crime control, because we do think it is important to clean up neighborhoods. But a very important part of cleaning up neighborhoods is the tax cuts the District consensus budget envisions. Now, the Senator from Illinois refers to these as giving away $59 million. Well, first of all, I don't think income tax cuts are giving money away. They are letting people who earn the money keep more of what they earn. Now, why would we support the District's decision to do that? Because the District is trying to clean up the neighborhoods, to do exactly what the Senator from Illinois wants to do--that is, have safe and clean neighborhoods throughout the District of Columbia. The way they are doing this is with, I think, a quite balanced tax cut program. The tax cuts for business will attract business into the city. This city needs more business investment. It is a government city. There isn't much commercial activity. The commercial activity will clean up property. It will provide jobs. It will have economic viability. But it will also have more investment in beautification of the city. Attracting business through tax cuts is something that is being done all over this country by cities that are trying to be progressive and improve their quality of life. The tax cuts on the income tax side are so modest that I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with them. People in the District who make $10,000 pay 6 percent in income taxes, and it would be lowered to 4 percent. It also gives breaks to the middle-income families that we want to be able to live in the District. We want to have a full range of families able to live in the District, and we are trying to support the District's efforts to do exactly that--to make this a family-friendly city. That is why it is so incredible that we would have any opposition to the tuition assistance plan, because one of the factors that a family uses to choose where it lives is the higher education potential for their children. I have had people tell me that it is like getting a $25,000-a-year pay raise to move to Texas because in-State tuition at Texas University is so low. I mean, it is ridiculously low. It is about $1,000. So a person moving to Texas getting a first-rate education from the University of Texas, Texas A&M, all of our colleges, and universities that are rated in the top 10, top 20, in many fields, have a good bargain. But what about a child who is growing up in the District of Columbia? They don't have a State university where they have an equal opportunity to go with in-State tuition because people are paying taxes to that State. This bill gives them that equal chance. This bill will equalize out-of-State tuition costs for D.C. students. So if they qualify to go to the University of Maryland, or the University of Virginia, or I hope the University of Texas, they will be able to have that added tuition they would have as an out-of-State student with these tuition assistance programs. I think it is part of the overall strategy of the District to make this city family friendly. They are making every attempt in the budget they presented to us to give them a better chance for education at the grade school, middle school, and high school level. This bill gives them the chance to have out-of-State tuition lowered to in-State tuition, where they would qualify anywhere in the country. This bill gives them more in crime prevention, more in crime control, and it says to businesses: We want you to come to the District, we want you to make an investment in the District, because we want to clean up the neighborhoods; and we know it is going to take a public-private partnership to do it. But I think this bill is quite balanced. I think the District has done a terrific job in trying to use the money it has--both the Federal budget side and the local budget side--to do what is necessary to attract families back into the District to live, and to keep the families that are here living here. If they don't do something about the income tax rate, they are never going to attract people, because the income tax rates on either side of them in Maryland and Virginia are half of what they are in the District. I think the Mayor and the council should be commended for saying: We are going to make our city attractive, we are going to do it in a balanced way, and we are going to meet the needs of the children in the District. But every city in the country is looking for ways to make their cities attractive. I am going to support the District in their efforts to make this city attractive for families. I am going to continue to work with Senator Durbin to try to make sure we are funding crime control in open air drug markets. I am going to continue to work with the District in trying to give charter schools a chance, if public education isn't serving the needs of individual children. Let's give competition a chance. I think the District has been quite progressive in doing that in their budget. I defend the tax cuts. I defend the tuition assistance program, which has bipartisan support, and the support of the President and the support of the District. I think we are going to see this city turn around. I am going to support the council in every way I can when I think they are going in the right direction. I think they are going in the right direction with tuition assistance. I hope Congress will authorize this program so we can put it into effect for the next university year. I think we will see a lot of activity in the District with people wanting to come here, stay here, and raise their families here. That will be good for every American, because a safe city, a clean city, and a city that has a low crime rate is going to be a city that every American wants to bring their families to visit as our Capital City. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just say, I commend Senator Coverdell for offering the amendment. I think that because of the opposition, he withdrew it. But if this is a subject that will come up in our conference committee, I will be supportive of the amendment. I think it is a tragedy to give any credence to the notion that it is OK to use drugs and we just wanted to make sure you have clean needles to do it. So this may come back. When it does, I will certainly be favorable to making sure we do not send any kind of signal that would make this an acceptable occasion in our country. Mr. President, I think Senator Daschle has asked to put his amendment up next. I am happy for him to do that. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from Georgia if he would allow me to make a general statement about the bill for about 5 minutes, and then I will defer to Senator Durbin if he has a statement?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, at this time I call up Calendar No. 170, S. 1283, the D.C. appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring to the Senate floor the bill making appropriations for the government of the District of Colombia for fiscal year 2000. This bill is largely the result of the cooperation between Mayor Williams, the city council, and the Financial Control Board. As a result of the hard work of locally elected officials, the Congress and the Financial Control Board, we begin to see signs of a healthier financial picture in the District. At the end of fiscal year 1998, the District boasted an annual surplus of $445 million. This surplus allowed the District to eliminate the accumulated deficit. Having paid that off, the District still realized a $112 million positive fund balance. The District is projecting a $282 million fund balance by the end of this year, which is 6 percent of the gross budget. The District's healthy fund balance and improved economic forecasts have helped the District achieve investment grade bond ratings on Wall Street, which will save the District millions in borrowing costs. One of the important provisions in the committee bill creates a mechanism that will help improve this situation even more. I am looking toward a higher bond rating for the city than the level at which it now rests. While the economic condition of the District is improving, service delivery in our Nation's Capital still has a way to go. The public school system is still in serious condition. Chief among these concerns are recent reports of convicted felons walking away from district-run halfway houses and committing violent crimes. The District government will not be able to attract new families, middle-class families, to the city unless its streets are safe, the schools are effective, and its tax structure is competitive with surrounding jurisdictions. Despite these problems, the budget moves the city in the correct direction, and I think we are making great progress. The subcommittee has adopted the District's consensus budget with a few modifications. These are the few: We have again required the District to hold a $150 million reserve fund, and there are tight restrictions on the use of the reserve fund. It can now serve as a true ``rainy day'' fund for the city. In addition, we require the District to hold a 4-percent budget surplus. The combination of the reserve and the required surplus will give the District a solid financial cushion that is slightly above what other major cities hold, but it is appropriate for the District in order to improve its bond rating. Any funds above the 4-percent surplus are directed to be used in this manner: No less than half for debt reduction, no more than half for spending on nonrecurring expenses. Currently, the District spends 13 percent of its budget servicing its debt. The highest normal ratio for a city is 10 percent. The reforms envisioned by this bill would bring this more in line with other cities. The city's debt was at one time so bad that it was not even rated by the major agencies. The city's bond rating is now investment grade, although it is the lowest rank of investment grade. I think this budget will start the process by which that rating will be upgraded. This is so important for the District to save millions in borrowing costs in the future. In addition, our budget has education reform. The committee has provided $17 million for the D.C. College Tuition Assistance Program, subject to authorization. I will wait and talk about that a little more when Senator Durbin discusses it as well. We have also addressed the issue of charter schools in the city. Many believe that charter schools are an important force for improving education in the city. Our bill adopts the D.C. City Council program to ensure that pupils in both public schools and charter schools receive the same amount of funding. This way, charter schools will remain an education alternative for students in the District. Everyone knows crime in the District is still too high. We have provided $5.8 million for drug testing of people on probation. This has worked in other cities and we hope it will bring down the crime rate in the District of Columbia as well. We provided $1 million to the D.C. police to combat open-air drug markets. This was a special concern expressed by Senator Durbin, and I think a correct one. These are dens of criminal activity that ruin a neighborhood and spread drugs to children. This money we hope will be used to start wiping out those open-air drug markets. We have also permitted the District to use economic development funds that we appropriated last year to be used for local tax relief for commercial revitalization. Rebuilding or refurbishing a blighted neighborhood is the most important thing we can do to bring it back into the economic mainstream and keep it safe. The District has found just recently, as the landlord of a number of abandoned properties, that such properties are a magnet for crime and drug use. So these funds can be used for revitalization and public/private partnerships. The committee tried to address the concerns of the mayor and the council. We certainly intend to improve the education system in the District. We are not where we want to be to make the Capital City the very best city in the whole United States, the beacon for what America is, but we are heading in that direction. It is the goal of Congress to make sure that our Capital City is one that all Americans feel they own and they can be proud of. I am pleased the Appropriations Committee reported this bill unanimously and look forward to working through the conference with Senator Durbin, my ranking member, who has been very cooperative and helpful in getting a bill through that will address the needs the District has and provide for those needs.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have a group of managers' amendments which I will send to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration. They have been cleared on both sides. I urge their adoption. There are two amendments by Senator Dorgan and two amendments by myself.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coverdell's needle exchange amendment have 30 minutes of debate, 20 minutes under the control of Senator Coverdell and 10 minutes under the control of Senator Durbin, at the end of which time Senator Coverdell will withdraw the amendment; Senator Durbin's tuition assistance program amendment have 30 minutes of debate, with 20 minutes under the control of Senator Durbin and 10 minutes under the control of Senator Hutchison, at the end of which time the amendment will be withdrawn; Senator Durbin's sense-of-the-Senate amendment on D.C. quality of life, with 15 minutes under control of Senator Durbin and 5 minutes under the control of Senator Hutchison, at the end of which time there will be a voice vote; Senator Daschle's Rock Creek Park amendment, with 20 minutes under the control of Senator Daschle, at the end of which time there will be a voice vote; two amendments by Senator Dorgan, with 5 minutes on each, controlled by Senator Dorgan, at the end of which time they will be accepted by managers; managers' amendments, and then a voice vote on final passage.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just wanted to say that this is a very important amendment. We will have 500 more Customs agents for our drug control. I think that it is very important that we were able to make this a priority. I appreciate Senator Dorgan and Senator Campbell working with us.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the Senator will yield, I was thinking as we were talking about this, and as the Senator was making his point, perhaps we could look for offsets within Customs' budget, as well as some of these other areas. We would like to pass the amendment, but we also would like to maybe look for other ways that Senator Kyl and I could set priorities within the Customs Department budget and maybe work something out that would not hurt another agency as much but we reprioritize within the budget.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I hope we will be able to allocate the $50 million in the Kyl-Hutchison amendment for the hiring of new Customs agents. We have a terrible situation. I understand the position of Senator Campbell and Senator Reid in having to allocate this money. I think they have done a yeoman's job working within the budget constraints. The fact of the matter is, in any budget, any family has to set priorities. This administration has refused to set a priority of protecting our borders from illegal immigration and illegal drugs coming in. The fact is, they asked for no new Border Patrol agents this year, even though Congress has allocated 1,000 new Border Patrol agents every year for 5 years starting 2 years ago. They didn't even hire the allocation in this year's budget. We authorized and paid for 1,000 Border Patrol agents in this year's budget, and this administration has only been able to hire 200 to 400 agents. Since we lose so many, we are worse off than we were when we started this fiscal year. Now we come to Customs agents who are, once again, on the front line, particularly for illegal drugs because they are the ones responsible for searching trucks and cars that come in through the border. Once again, we have a request from the President for zero new Customs agents. The Customs Office itself asked for 617 new Customs agents. Look at what these Customs agents are doing. More than $10 billion in drugs flow across the U.S.-Mexico border each year. Last year, the Customs Service seized 995,000 pounds of marijuana, 148,000 pounds of cocaine, and 3,500 pounds of heroin. We are talking about not fully funding new agents, to not give these people on the front line the help they need in stopping the flow of illegal drugs into our country. In Loredo, TX, the biggest commercial port of entry on our southern border, there were over 1 million truck crossings last year. There are routine waits of 4 to 6 hours. At El Paso's Bridge of the Americas, the hours of operation are from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m., but because the Customs Service can't afford to pay overtime, they have to close at 4 so that they will be able to actually finish the people in the pipeline by 5. Trucks entering an import lot after 4 have to wait until 6 the next morning just to have their documentation cleared. This is hurting not only our ability to curb illegal traffic, but it is also hurting trade and free trade and ratcheting up the cost of goods coming in from the border. So it is very important that we look at Customs agents as the front line for getting illegal drugs stopped at our country's borders. DEA Administrator, Tom Constantine, was before the Commerce, State, Justice Subcommittee this past March, and he said: The vast majority of drugs available in the United States originate overseas. The international drug trade is controlled by a small number of high echelon drug lords, who reside in Colombia and Mexico. Most Americans are unaware of the vast damage that has been caused to their communities by international drug trafficking syndicates, most recently by organized crime groups headquartered in Mexico. At the current time, these traffickers pose the greatest threat to communities around the United States. Their impact is no longer limited to cities and towns along the Southwest border; traffickers from Mexico are now routinely operating in the Midwest, the Southeast, the Northwest, and, increasingly, in the northeastern portion of the United States. We need to have as a priority stopping illegal drugs coming through our borders. And if the administration continues to ask for zero new border patrol agents and zero new Customs agents, we are not going to be able to win the war on drugs. We cannot do it. Senator Kyl and I didn't choose to go in and take from other parts of the budget; that was our only option. When the President comes in with a budget that asks for no new Customs agents, we could do nothing but try to find offsets in order to maintain the integrity of the budget. So we went for administrative costs that were increases in spending over last year. It wasn't our choice to do this, but the difference between having increases in the GSA budget or increases in Customs agents who are going to be on the front line stopping illegal drugs from coming into our country, and to ease the flow of trade into our country, it seems to me, is pretty clear. So I hope that we can make this a priority. I look forward to working with Senator Campbell and Senator Reid in the conference committee to try to mitigate the impact of any cuts that would be made in other budgets. I understand their position and having to defend this bill. They had hard choices to make. But we can't choose to walk away from law enforcement on our borders. This is a Federal responsibility. We can't fill in with local law enforcement officers. They don't have the capability to stem the flow of illegal drugs into our country. So I hope our colleagues will support the Kyl-Hutchison amendment. We will do everything we can to mitigate the cuts that we are making in other areas, but it has to be our priority to get control of our sovereign borders, to keep illegal drugs from going into Cleveland, OH, or from going into Tacoma, WA, or Wilmington, DE, because that is where these drugs end up; they don't stay on the border. They infiltrate our country, and we must stop it. This is one of the ways we are going to try to do that. I yield the floor. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to make a comment about Reverend Lyons, who just opened our Senate session with a prayer, because he is a very special person to me and to the State of Texas and really to all Americans. A little over a year ago, a heinous crime was committed in the small town of Jasper, TX, when James Byrd, Jr., was brutally murdered simply because of his race, dragged to death by three men in a pickup truck. The senseless killing riveted the Nation and many feared the outbreak of civil disorder. But Rev. Kenneth Lyons helped still the troubled waters. He is pastor of Greater New Bethel Baptist Church where James Byrd's family worshipped every Sunday. Pastor Lyons spoke fearlessly to people of all races. He said, ``This must have been a divine wake-up call to the consciences of men. You can't fight fire with fire.'' He urged not vengeance but harmony and peace. Reverend Lyons' wise leadership personified Abraham Lincoln's call to the ``better angels of our nature.'' He helped unite the people of Jasper, TX, in their commitment to equality and justice, to rise above hatred and despair. Millions of Americans watched that small town of Jasper, TX, as it came together because of Reverend Lyons' plea for redemption and healing. Because of his faith and eloquence, we are better people. Response In Jasper, Texas There are other heroes in Jasper, TX, and it was one of the great moments of my life to be able to go to Pastor Lyons' church and attend the burial ceremony for James Byrd, Jr., and to meet the kind of people who make this country what it is. I met James Byrd, Sr., and Mrs. Byrd, Renee Mullins, James Byrd, Jr.'s daughter, and his son. I met people who had just endured something that none of us ever want to have any of our family or friends ever endure. James Byrd, Sr., was saying: There is no hate here; there is love in this family. That was the beginning of the healing process not only in Jasper, TX, but a model for America--when something we cannot possibly understand happens, someone steps forward and says we can't let this tear all of us down. James Byrd, Sr., started that process. I want to talk about Billy Rowles, the Jasper County sheriff, who did not let one minute pass when he got that call on that fateful Sunday morning and he heard the beginning of what was going to be a nightmare for his town. Billy Rowles started making calls, and he said: This is not going to stand. We are going to have justice in Jasper County. We are going to have justice from what I am hearing over the phone on Sunday morning. And because of Billy Rowles' leadership, justice is on its way. The mayor of Jasper is R.C. Horn. He was right there on the phone talking to Pastor Lyons, making calls to all of the clergy in Jasper, TX, that Sunday morning, setting the tone for what would be the message: That this community is not a bad community and I want every one of you in your pulpits on Sunday morning to say this is a community of love. Mayor Horn was one of those people who started the healing process. Guy James Gray, the district attorney of Jasper County, was not going to let anything slip by. He was going to make sure the people who perpetrated this heinous crime would come to justice. Of the three people who have been accused, thanks to the good work of Guy James Gray, one has been convicted. And there is Walter Diggles, the executive director of the Deep East Texas Council of Governments, always there behind the scenes, trying to help in this first week when all of the attention was focused on Jasper, TX. Jasper, TX, had never had the attention of the world focused on it. But because of Walter Diggles, Billy Rowles, and Guy James Gray and Mayor Horn and the James Byrd, Jr. family, these people were able to withstand all the television cameras and all the people who came from outside to give them advice they did not really need because they knew what was the right thing to do. They knew that to keep their community together they were going to have to talk about love, not hate. They did not need anybody coming in from outside to tell them that because they were speaking from the heart. They didn't have focus groups and they didn't have advisers and psychiatrists. They did not need organizers and spinmeisters because they were doing it from the heart. And they have created a model that every community will follow if it wants to keep a community together after a terrible tragedy. I want to add one more to this list because I have never seen anything like what happened in the trial of the first of those accused of this murder. There you saw the father of the accused, named Ronald King, sitting in the courtroom every day, absolutely devastated by what his son was accused of doing. This father, who adopted this boy to give him a chance in life, sat in that courtroom in support of his son, but devastated at what he was hearing in the courtroom. Mr. King came out of that courthouse every day, and he said: I don't blame the Byrd family for any bad feelings that they would have, and I apologize to the Byrd family. I support my son and I love my son and I always will, Mr. King said, but he said I understand how James Byrd, Sr. and his family feel and my heart goes out to them. James Byrd, Sr. reached back to Ronald King and he said: I understand your pain. This is not your fault, and we will be strong together. Ronald King is a hero, too, because what Pastor Lyons and the city of Jasper and all of those I have mentioned have done for our country is to show us that the spiritual community can make a difference by preaching love when there is a lot of opportunity for hate, and how that divine love can keep a community together, can make us remember our strengths in this country, and not dwell on the weaknesses. I applaud Jasper, TX, and these leaders and Pastor Lyons, whom we have heard today; James Byrd, Sr. and his family; and Ronald King, for showing us that this is a great country and we are going to take a terrible tragedy and we are going to make this country stronger, as I believe it is today, because of a very small group of people who didn't need national advisers to tell them what was right. In fact, they have shown us what is right about our country. Thank you, Mr. President.